Rich, i think you're just seeing everything more logical than it is. You have all these set rules in your mind- the batsman can't be too good for the bowler, finger-spinners can't be any use when the ball isn't turning square, lateral movement is necessary for any bowler to be top-class.

These aren't rules, they're just trends. And the first one is just odd.

Originally Posted by indiaholic

Ireland on the other hand are everything that is good and just and beautiful in this world.

You've exaggerated the point on the second one, considerably, and to a small extent the third as well. In my view, when expressed as I express them, they are indeed rules, which have no exception. If you wish to view them as trends that's your (and anyone else's) choice, but my experience leads me to believe otherwise.

By the way I was refering to set batsmen, not ones fresh to the crease. Most spinners bowl to set batsmen and a big way that spinners get wickets is by variations that deceive the batsman, like what happened to Clarke in the second innings. He lost concentration at a pivotal moment in his innings and missed a good ball.

Of course you need to bowl well to exploit concentration lapses, but it's exactly the same as conditions - you have to bowl well to exploit them too. Bowling dross may occasionally get you the rare wicket, but not often.

It's not so rare as you make it out to be. And of course bowling unthreateningly can of times get you wickets - batsmen are not superhuman, and in fact make errors regularly. Obviously, nothing close to every error results in a wicket.